Sustainable Settlements in the Amazon1 is an initiative led by the Amazon Environmental Research Institute (IPAM), which aims to pilot a model for smallholder production with low carbon emissions. IPAM’s stated goal is “to increase the profitability of areas already deforested to reduce the need for farmers to open new forest areas” (IPAM n.d.). In 2009, when the initiative was first designed and proposed to the Amazon Fund,2 it targeted 350 families who lived along the Transamazon Highway and who had previously participated in a government program called Proambiente.3 At the end of 2010, the initiative was approved on condition that it be expanded to include a larger number of families. By establishing partnerships with local institutions (including rural labor unions and producer associations) and government agencies such as INCRA, IPAM has expanded the initiative to encompass 300 more families in three land reform settlements. The initiative provides technical assistance to these families to support implementation of sustainable management plans on their farms, helps them with environmental and land tenure regularization, and seeks to address the structural challenges of increasing and legalizing production while reducing deforestation. In addition, the 350 families living in the Transamazon region are receiving direct payments to support their transition to sustainable agriculture. In this chapter, we describe the goals and strategies of the initiative, characterize the smallholders in the Transamazon region originally targeted by the initiative, and discuss key challenges and concerns about the initiative and strategies for addressing them.
7.1 Basic facts: Where, who, why and when
7.1.1 Geography
The 350 families that were the initial focus of this initiative have farms on secondary roads along the Transamazon Highway (BR-230) in the municipalities of Senador José Porfírio, Anapu and Pacajá in the state of Pará. These farms are on average 90 ha and are scattered across an area of more than 10,000 km2 (IPAM 2013). Some of the farms are in the Bom Jardim agricultural reform settlement, which was one of three settlements later selected for the initiative (Figure 7.1). Bom Jardim has 692 families and an area of 960 km2. The other two settlements are Moju I/II (1578 families and 1364 km2) and Cristalino (110 families and 62 km2). In this chapter, we focus on the 350 families initially targeted by IPAM in the Transamazon region.
The Transamazon region has dense and open ombrophilous forest. The climate (classified as Aw by the Köppen system) is characterized by a rainy season from December through June and a dry season in the remaining months of the year. The very marked difference in precipitation between these two seasons profoundly influences the phenological cycles of plants and animals, as well as the productive and cultural activities in the region (Smith 1982). Average annual rainfall varies between 1500 and 2500 mm; the average annual temperature is above 22°C; and relative humidity averages around 81% (FVPP 2002). The topography of the region ranges from flat to heavily undulating. Elevation measured in the centers of our study communities is 96 masl in two communities, and 61 masl and 91 masl in the other two. The major soil types are yellow/red latosols, red/yellow podzolics and yellow humic latosols,4 along with small patches of alfisols that have superior fertility, known locally as terra roxa (IPAM and FVPP 2009). The annual deforestation rate has been estimated as 4.8% based on historical deforestation data from 1998 and 2008 (IPAM and FVPP 2009).
Historically, land use and forest management in the region were shaped by the opening of the Transamazon Highway. Until the 1970s, the region was occupied primarily by indigenous people and caboclos.5 However, the National Integration Plan (1970–1974) of the Brazilian military government led to road construction and the settlement of small colonist farmers in the region. During the construction of the Transamazon Highway (1971–1973), the government encouraged families from all over Brazil, especially from the northeast, to migrate to this new frontier area, promising them fertile land, technical assistance and basic infrastructure. INCRA was created to help manage this process. When settlers received land, they were encouraged by INCRA to deforest at least 50% of their plots to guarantee possession (Souza 2006), contradicting the minimum 50% forest cover required by the National Forest Code (Law 4771) at that time. In the first years of settlement, INCRA promoted the cultivation of annual crops, mainly rice (Smith 1977). However, in 1975, the state reneged on its promised investments in these settlements in favor of subsidies for large-scale cattle ranching, forestry and mining. The government stopped settling new farmers and abandoned farmers already settled in the region, who were left in a precarious situation without public health services, education or transportation.
Figure 7.1 Map of the REDD+ initiative in the Transamazon.
Data sources: IPAM, Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística, GADM and World Ocean Base.
Table 7.1 Population and main crops of Anapu, Pacajá and Senador José Porfírio, in Pará.
Municipality |
Total population |
Main crops |
Anapu |
20,493 (52%) |
Rice, cassava, banana, cocoa |
Pacajá |
40,052 (66%) |
Cassava, banana, cocoa |
Senador José Porfírio |
12,998 (50%) |
Banana, coconut, orange |
The families who remained in the settlements initially focused on cultivation of annual crops. At the end of the 1970s, there were some efforts to implement permanent agriculture (mainly cocoa and pepper) in areas with the more fertile alfisols. However, by the end of the 1980s, prices for cocoa and pepper had decreased and productivity had declined due to pests and diseases (Sablayrolles and Rocha 2003). This crisis contributed to the development of cattle ranching as an alternative livelihood strategy, encouraged by credit for cattle subsidized by the Fundo Constitucional de Financiamento do Norte (FNO). Currently, households throughout the area raise annual and perennial crops, as well as beef and dairy cattle. Some are also engaged in small-scale logging (IPAM and FVPP 2009). Table 7.1 characterizes the three municipalities with families that were initially targeted by the initiative, and Figure 7.1 shows the four locations where these families were interviewed for this study.
7.1.2 Stakeholders and funding
IPAM, the lead proponent of the Sustainable Settlements in the Amazon initiative, is a Brazilian nongovernmental research organization that has worked in the Amazon since 1995. Its two key partners are INCRA and Fundação Viver, Produzir e Preservar (FVPP), which has been promoting the rights of farm families in the Transamazon region since 1990. IPAM has also formed other important partnerships, including with the Casas Familiares Rurais;6 local governments (Environmental Secretariats of Anapu and Senador José Porfírio, Economic Development Secretariat of Pacajá); rural labor unions of the three municipalities; and the Federation of Agricultural Workers of Pará (FETAGRI). The initiative has been funded by the Amazon Fund since 2012 (see the initiative timeline, Figure 7.2) and is also supported by the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, Climate and Land Use Alliance, and the Ford Foundation. There is no plan to sell carbon offset credits in voluntary markets or future compliance markets.
7.1.3 Motivation
This REDD+ initiative grew out of the Proambiente experience with sustainable agriculture and PES. The idea for Proambiente was first proposed by FETAGRI in 2000 as a way to support families in the Transamazon who were developing farming methods that did not employ fire (Souza 2006). From 2000 to 2002, FETAGRI received financial support from Brazil’s Ministry of Environment to pilot Proambiente, with FVPP as the main proponent and IPAM as a key partner in select activities (IPAM and FVPP 2009). In 2004, Proambiente became a federal government program managed by the Secretariat of Sustainable Development Policies (Mattos 2010) with 12 pilot sites across the Amazon, including in the Transamazon.
Implementation in the Transamazon began in 2002 with the selection of households, followed by the creation of 15 community groups7 in 2004. Families were selected based on two main criteria: (i) membership in a representative organization (mainly the Rural Workers Union); and (ii) interest in adopting agroecological practices such as avoiding the use of fire for preparing the land, improved pasture management and agroforestry systems. A property appraisal and a management plan8 were both created for each selected household, and each community group established a community agreement9 (Araújo 2007). In 2005–2006, the 350 selected households in the Transamazon received payments over a six-month period, conditional on adoption of sustainable agricultural practices, including collective fire management. However, federal funding for Proambiente was cut off at the end of 2006 due to lack of a national framework for PES, limited funding and implementation capacity, and incompatibility of the program with regional development policies (Hall 2008). In response to the cancellation of Proambiente, IPAM in partnership with FVPP sought funding for a REDD+ initiative in this area as a way to continue supporting farmers who had signed up for Proambiente (see initiative timeline, Figure 7.2).
7.1.4 Timeline
Preparation for this REDD+ initiative began in earnest in April 2009, when a proposal for an initiative called “Avoided Deforestation on Small Rural Properties in the Transamazon Highway Region” was submitted to the Amazon Fund. However, there were clearly many related activities before this time, and activities under the REDD+ initiative only began when funding was awarded at the end of 2012. The timeline (Figure 7.2) summarizes the history of the initiative and interventions applied until early 2014. Details on the initiative interventions are presented in Section 7.2.
Figure 7.2 Timeline of the REDD+ initiative in the Transamazon.
7.2 Strategy for the initiative
IPAM considers the initiative as ‘REDD+,’ but believes that it should be understood as part of a broader vision for REDD+ as national or state public policy, and not as an isolated REDD+ project (personal communication from O Stella, 22 May 2013). The broad goal of the initiative is to serve as a development model for the Amazon to inform and promote more appropriate public policies for sustainable production in rural settlements. Specifically in the Transamazon region, the initiative aims to reduce deforestation (RED), reduce degradation (second D) and promote forest conservation and management (+). The co-benefits of highest priority to IPAM are livelihood benefits for smallholders gleaned from the transition to sustainable production. Because there is no plan to sell carbon offset credits, IPAM has not sought any certifications (e.g. from VCS or CCBA). The forest cover reference level for the initiative was established for the farms of the 350 participating families. Deforestation was projected 15 years into the future, based on annual historical deforestation data obtained from the National Institute of Spatial Research (INPE) for the period 1996–2005. IPAM also uses INPE images to evaluate and monitor changes in forest cover in the intervention area, although it is also testing imagery with higher spatial resolution, such as from the Spot satellite.
To identify 350 farm families to participate in the initiative, IPAM worked with the 13 remaining community groups (or núcleos) from the 1510 that had been formed under Proambiente. IPAM initially sought to recruit the same 350 families that participated in Proambiente, inviting them to informational meetings held in the communities in 2013 (see initiative timeline), but the recruitment of all 350 families was not possible (personal communication from L Souza, 4 February 2014). Many families that had participated in Proambiente left the area or became disillusioned and were not willing to participate in the REDD+ initiative. IPAM overcame this by asking families already enrolled to recommend others who would be willing to participate, finally attaining their target of 350 families by the end of 2013.
IPAM plans to accomplish its goals of reducing carbon emissions and generating co-benefits through three activities: (i) direct cash payments; (ii) investments in alternative production activities; and (iii) bringing properties into compliance with environmental regulations. First, in January and February 2014, IPAM signed PES contracts with the families. To be eligible for payments, a family’s farm must have at least 30% forest cover (including mature forest, secondary forest designated for regeneration, cultivation of agricultural trees such as cocoa or coffee, forest tree plantations and agroforestry), and there must be no illegal logging in mature forests, no use of fire without control measures and no use of pesticides without technical orientation. A family can receive up to USD 759/year, depending on their level of compliance with different conditions.11 One of these conditions is that a certain percentage of forest cover must be maintained on the property, with IPAM encouraging at least 50% (through forest cover maintenance or reforestation for the households with less than this percentage but with at least 30% of forest cover). However, all participants have been grandfathered in under the 2012 amendments to the Brazilian Forest Code, which only require as much forest as existed in July 2008 on properties smaller than 400 ha (see Box D). Payments will be distributed every three months during the 38-month contract, through national postal electronic vouchers. The first payment was delivered to all the selected families (in March/April 2014) as an initial incentive, but for the next payments, compliance will be monitored through remote sensing, field visits by the project technicians to assess progress in implementing the household property use plan and participatory evaluation of compliance with the community agreement. The payments are intended to make forest conservation economically viable and are considered by IPAM as a temporary tool until smallholders successfully transition to sustainable production.
Second, IPAM will support implementation of household property management plans, which outline systematic steps to reduce the use of fire as a land management tool and to reduce deforestation, with all steps adapted to each family’s preferences and capabilities. As indicated in the timeline, IPAM started developing these plans in April 2014. Even before then, families reported that the plans were a very positive aspect of Proambiente and the REDD+ initiative, since they combine local and technical knowledge (Cromberg et al. 2014). After finalizing the property management plans, IPAM intends to elaborate the community agreement for each of the 13 community groups, based on the Proambiente experience. IPAM also plans to provide assistance with restoration of permanent preservation areas (Área de Preservação Permanente, APPs), to invest in improved production systems and to promote internal capacity building, for example, through exchange visits between different community groups.
Third, in the meetings that IPAM held in 2013, its representatives explained environmental legislation, land tenure regularization and related topics, such as the rules regarding forest clearing and burning. Also in 2012–2013, IPAM partnered with FVPP, municipal governments and the Institute of Technical Assistance and Rural Extension of Pará (EMATER) to register properties in CAR. This requires drawing the property boundaries and identifying different land uses and areas for preservation on a satellite image. Registration in CAR was established by the new Forest Code in May 2012 as a first step toward compliance with environmental regulations, making it a key initial step in many REDD+ initiatives in the Brazilian Amazon.
While IPAM and its partners were rolling out the REDD+ initiative, there were numerous other policy changes and interventions in the Transamazon region. These included more effective monitoring and enforcement of the Forest Code by IBAMA. In 2013, after a year of particularly high deforestation in the Amazon, IBAMA intensified its control in multiple municipalities in Pará, including Anapu and Pacajá, where some of the community groups are located. Small farmers report that they have been negatively impacted by IBAMA’s efforts to stop forest clearing and burning beyond legal limits, with fines and seizure of equipment. At the same time, the region was receiving development support, especially for cocoa production. For example, IPAM constructed cocoa seedling nurseries with funding from Petrobras, and the local cooperative promoted organic cocoa through education, distribution of seedlings and a system of guaranteed purchase (since 2011). Also, since 2013, technical assistance for cocoa production has been delivered by two private local firms (COPCAU and COMATER) in two of the community groups.
7.3 Smallholders in the initiative
For the CIFOR-GCS survey, we defined four ‘communities’ built on community groups created by FVPP for Proambiente and expanded based on local definitions of social organization, e.g. to encompass a defined portion of a land reform settlement or all households along one or more secondary roads that branched off the Transamazon Highway. Between July and August 2010, we interviewed 137 households (19.7%) of the total 696 households in these four communities. The household sample was stratified by community and by participation in the initiative (see Table 7.2). In each community, we also held one general meeting with an average of 15 participants (both men and women) and one meeting with only women.
Local institutions are well developed in the intervention area, with multiple small farmer associations and a local cocoa cooperative. The leadership of the most important local institutions is elected. IPAM coordinates with the communities by working through a representative they appoint and pay to serve as a communication channel with the participating families. In three communities, the majority of the women reported that women are not sufficiently represented on important community decision-making bodies. However, most reported that women are able to influence community decisions when they want to. None of the communities have institutions specifically for women.
Table 7.2 characterizes the study communities. One of the communities was created in the 1970s during the opening of the Transamazon, while the other three were established in the 1980s. Therefore, the household heads are migrants from other regions, especially from the relatively impoverished northeast of Brazil. In terms of access to infrastructure, the communities have schools only until the 4th grade, and older students must go to the closest city (16–74 km away) to continue their studies. Health centers available to community residents are also in the cities, although the government does pay public health agents who live in the communities. While it was reported that all four communities have year-round access to a road usable by four-wheel drive vehicles, most households do not have access to these vehicles, and transportation is a major challenge during the rainy season. This influences decisions about investments in agricultural production, since it is not economically viable to sell products in regional markets during the rainy season.
The main staple food in the four communities is rice (Table 7.2). However, rice production was reported to have declined between 2008 and 2010 due to its low price in the market relative to the high production costs, including labor requirements. In the community meetings, farmers reported that it was easier and/or cheaper to buy rice in the market than to produce it. Nevertheless, in 2009–2010, rice remained the crop with the highest production value (cash and subsistence) per household in two of the four study communities, and it was cultivated by 72% of the sampled household in 2009–2010. Producers also reported having decreased their cassava production due to a lack of market, predation by wild pigs and government restrictions on swidden agriculture.
Table 7.2 Characteristics of the four communities studied based on the 2010 survey.
TAMZ1 |
TAMZ2 |
TAMZ3 |
TAMZ4 |
|
Basic characteristics |
||||
Total number of householdsa |
198 |
220 |
158 |
120 |
Number of sampled households (pb; npc) |
33 |
33 |
36 |
35 |
Total land area (ha)a |
41,000 |
18,500 |
19,900 |
5,500 |
Total forest area (ha)a |
20,500 |
9,250 |
7,960 |
3,300 |
Year founded |
1982 |
1987 |
1972 |
1982 |
Access to infrastructure |
||||
Primary school |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Secondary school |
No |
No |
No |
No |
Health center |
No |
No |
No |
No |
Road usable by four-wheel drive vehicles in all seasons |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Bank or other source of formal credit |
No |
No |
No |
No |
Distance to closest market by most common means of transport (km) |
74 |
16 |
27 |
28 |
Previous experience with conservation NGO |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Agriculture |
||||
Main staple food |
Rice |
Rice |
Rice |
Rice |
Crop with highest production value per household on average (2009–2010) |
Rice |
Cocoa |
Cocoa |
Rice |
Price of a hectare of good quality agricultural land (USD) |
283 |
566 |
340 |
354 |
a Number of households, total land area and forest area reflect estimates by key informants, such as the presidents of community associations or community health agents.
b p = interviewed families that were previously selected to participate in the REDD+ initiative.
c np = interviewed families that were not selected to participate in the REDD+ initiative.
Farmers have reduced the production of annual crops mainly because they have become less profitable, while increased production of cocoa was reported in three of the four study communities (TAMZ2, TAMZ3 and TAMZ4). In TAMZ2 and TAMZ3, cocoa was the product with the highest production value on average per household in 2009–2010 (Table 7.2). The main reasons reported by the households for the increase in cocoa production were the guaranteed market and high prices. In one of these communities, smallholders also mentioned that as a permanent crop, cocoa does not require the use of fire as a management tool. In fact, cocoa has been promoted by NGOs in the region, including IPAM, and other private firms as a sustainable crop with good economic returns for families. However, it is important to highlight that the cultivation of cocoa requires fertile soils, which are not uniformly distributed in the Transamazon region, despite government claims in the 1970s (Moran 1981). In addition, cocoa involves high startup costs and a large labor demand for the crop maintenance and harvest, which means that small families need to hire external labor. Therefore, in the first years of settlement, families usually invest mainly in annual crops and only after accumulating some capital do they invest in cattle and/or perennial crops (cf. Perz and Walker 2002). In the community where cocoa had not grown in importance over the two years prior to our research (TAMZ1), households were increasing the production of cashew (Anacardium occidentale L.), murici (Byrsonima crassifolia (L.) Kunth) and urucum (Bixa orellana L.), due to their adaptability to different soil conditions. This community has poorer quality soils, which is reflected in lower agricultural productivity and household incomes, as can be seen in Table 7.3.
Table 7.3 Socioeconomic characteristics of households interviewed in 2010.
TAMZ1 |
TAMZ2 |
TAMZ3 |
TAMZ4 |
|
Number of households sampled |
33 |
33 |
36 |
35 |
Household average (SD) |
||||
Number of adults |
3.1 (1.3) |
3.0 (1.5) |
3.5 (1.8) |
2.8 (1.5) |
Number of members |
4.8 (2.1) |
4.8 (2.5) |
5.0 (2.5) |
4.9 (2.9) |
Days of illness per adult |
13.4 (24.9) |
17.1 (27.8) |
14.7 (38.0) |
22.5 (49.0) |
Years of education |
4.5 (3.5) |
4.5 (2.9) |
4.3 (3.8) |
3.1 (2.7) |
Total income (USD)a |
5,699 (3,741) |
13,827 (27,984) |
16,500 (20,806) |
6,456 |
Total value of livestock (USD)b |
3,244 (5,716) |
5,522 (7,745) |
12,319 (20,523) |
4,592 (10,292) |
Total land controlled (ha)c |
81.7 (26.5) |
90.7 (44.1) |
119.9 (102.8) |
66.5 (68.9) |
Total value of transportation assets (USD) |
681 (846) |
3,779 (6,618) |
4,407 (12,130) |
938 (1,066) |
Percentage of households with: |
||||
Mobile or fixed phone |
39 |
52 |
42 |
26 |
Electricity |
33 |
97 |
97 |
100 |
Piped water supply |
6 |
45 |
31 |
17 |
Private latrine or toilet |
82 |
67 |
86 |
74 |
Perceived sufficient income |
61 |
61 |
72 |
54 |
a Total annual income (12 months prior to survey) from agriculture, livestock, business, wage labor and other sources (remittances, subsidies, pensions), net of costs, in USD; currency converted using yearly average provided by the World Bank.
b Total livestock value at the time of interview.
c Total area of agricultural, forest, other natural habitat and residential areas controlled by the household, either used or rented out.
Table 7.3 summarizes socioeconomic welfare indicators of the sampled households. TAMZ3 has the highest average household income, the highest percentage of families that agreed that their income has been sufficient to cover basic household needs, and the largest average land and livestock holdings per household. This demonstrates the congruence of income and other measures of welfare. In addition, access to transportation assets, especially motorcycles, is higher in the two communities with the highest average income. In terms of education, household members (those ≥ 16 years old) had studied on average four years across most communities, which generally corresponds to the completion of the 4th grade at school. Most families in the study communities had access to electricity with the exception of TAMZ1, where only one-third of households had electricity connections. Although some households in TAMZ 2 and 3 had access to piped water, most obtained water from their own wells.
The data clearly show that the smallholders’ livelihoods are based on agriculture and cattle ranching (Figures 7.3 and 7.4 and Table 7.3). In three of the four communities, households derived the largest share of their income from crops (TAMZ1, 34%; TAMZ2, 37%; TAMZ4, 23%). Only in TAMZ3 was livestock the main source of income (39%), specifically cattle ranching, although agricultural crops remained important (28%). In TAMZ2, cattle ranching also represents a high share (35%). The higher average value of agricultural income in TAMZ2 and TAMZ3 is partly explained by their more fertile soils, which is particularly important for cocoa production. Forest and environmental income were negligible in all four communities (Figures 7.3 and 7.4). Government support, especially through Bolsa Família (cash transfer), was a very important source of income in TAMZ1 (26%) and TAMZ4 (32%), which had the lowest average household incomes. In these communities, the direct payments from the REDD+ initiative could also represent an important source of income, with the maximum value equal to 13% of average household income in TAMZ1 and 12% in TAMZ4 during 2009–2010, whereas for the families from the communities with higher income, it represented 5% of average household income. However, families with lower income that are mainly reliant on swidden agriculture might also incur higher opportunity costs for adopting new productive strategies. These families have less capital to invest in permanent cultivation, which requires high initial implementation costs. They may also be limited in their ability to invest in those crops if their properties have low soil fertility.
Figure 7.3 Sources of income for all households in sample (n = 137).
Figure 7.4 Sources of income for average household by community (or village) (+/- SE) (n = 137).
Although only a small percentage of household income is derived from the forest, in the meeting with women, significant forest use was reported. According to participants in these meetings, nearly all men go to the forest (generally on their own plot) to collect products. In three communities, they also reported that nearly all women collect products from the forest. Most men and women go to the forest during the dry season; however, in TAMZ4, women reported going to the forest more during the wet season. Women are most likely to collect firewood, vines, fruits, herbs and traditional medicines and to fish. Men’s principal activities in the forest are hunting, fishing, logging, collecting fruits and vines, monitoring the forests on their properties and clearing the vegetation around the property limits.
Table 7.4 summarizes information about forest dependence among the households sampled. Our data show that the collection of forest products was mostly for the households’ own consumption. The product collected by the largest percentage of families in our sample was firewood (61%), which reflects the high dependence on it for cooking (Table 7.4); other products harvested by more than half of the households were fruits (55%) and bushmeat (53%). One-third of the families reported fishing. Charcoal was made by 33% of the families, and wood (logs, sawn wood and poles) was collected by 20% of families.
When asked about the change in the proportion of families involved in the collection of NTFPs and firewood, participants in the community meetings in TAMZ2 and TAMZ3 said that the proportion of families involved with this activity decreased from 2008 to 2010. In TAMZ2, the main reason given was a decline in the resource and a decreased demand for NTFPs, while in TAMZ3, many households have adopted gas instead of firewood for cooking, consistent with the higher average income in this community. Respondents in TAMZ2 and TAMZ4 reported that the proportion of families involved in timber extraction has declined due to a decrease in the resource. For most families, the consumption of forest products did not change from 2008 to 2010 – it remained a small but consistent component of household subsistence (Table 7.4).
Table 7.4 Indicators of household forest dependence based on the 2010 survey.
TAMZ1 |
TAMZ2 |
TAMZ3 |
TAMZ4 |
|
Number of households sampled |
33 |
33 |
36 |
35 |
Household average (SD) |
||||
Share of income from forest |
6.79 (6.00) |
12.80 (30.54) |
3.46 (3.96) |
5.57 (8.18) |
Share of income from agriculture |
48.40 (25.28) |
59.04 (32.09) |
54.11 (28.88) |
38.19 (26.97) |
Area of natural forest cleared (ha)a |
1.09 (2.83) |
1.75 (2.59) |
0.86 (2.13) |
0.27 (0.95) |
Area of secondary forest cleared (ha)a |
2.16 (4.07) |
2.73 (6.27) |
3.08 (5.44) |
2.40 (2.69) |
Area left fallow (ha)b |
4.41 (3.94) |
2.97 (3.65) |
7.93 (9.22) |
4.39 (7.60) |
Distance to forests |
5 |
15 |
5 |
30 |
Percentage of households |
||||
With agriculture as a primary or secondary occupation |
69 |
76 |
71 |
76 |
With a forest-based primary or secondary occupation |
1 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
Reporting increased consumption of forest productse |
7 |
0 |
3 |
3 |
Reporting decreased consumption of forest productse |
39 |
6 |
23 |
12 |
Obtaining cash income from forest productsf |
73 |
61 |
61 |
69 |
Reporting an increase in cash income from forestf |
4 |
0 |
9 |
0 |
Reporting a decrease in cash income from forestf |
33 |
10 |
14 |
0 |
Reporting fuelwood or charcoal as primary cooking source |
94 |
79 |
67 |
89 |
Leaving land fallowg |
76 |
45 |
53 |
71 |
Clearing forestg |
70 |
82 |
86 |
83 |
Reporting decreased opportunity for clearing forestg |
94 |
82 |
78 |
74 |
Clearing land for cropsg |
67 |
79 |
86 |
83 |
Clearing land for pastureg |
3 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
a Average no. of hectares cleared over the past two years among households that reported clearing of any forest.
b Average no. of hectares left fallow among households that reported leaving any land fallow.
c Percentage of households with at least one adult reporting cropping as a primary or secondary livelihood.
d Percentage of households with at least one adult reporting forestry as a primary or secondary livelihood.
e Percentage of households among those that reported any consumption of forest products over the past two years.
f Percentage of households among those that reported any cash income from forest products over the past two years.
g In the two years prior to the survey.
In terms of forest cover change, three of the communities reported a decrease in community forest cover between 2008 and 2010. In TAMZ1, they attributed this decrease to new settlers who had recently moved into the settlement. In TAMZ2, small-scale logging and expansion of cattle pastures were considered the main causes. In this community, households reported that certain individuals were concentrating land through the purchase of other lots to develop extensive cattle ranching. Although the sale of lots in land reform settlements is common, it is not legal according to INCRA. Both cattle pasture and swidden agriculture were cited as causes of forest decline in TAMZ4. Only in TAMZ3 did households report that forest cover increased, attributing this to the reduction in the use of fire for agriculture, implementation of agroforestry systems and the regeneration of pasture areas.
Most households that reported clearing forest (between 2008–2010) did so for the purpose of growing crops. However, with the exception of TAMZ2, all communities mentioned that there was a reduction in the area under swidden agriculture in 2008–2010 due to families’ increased focus on permanent agriculture and greater environmental consciousness. In TAMZ1, farmers said that Proambiente encouraged families to reduce swidden agriculture, but did not provide support for expanding perennial agriculture. In the other three communities, an increase in the area cultivated under permanent agriculture was reported.
7.4 Challenges facing the initiative
The proponent and households both identified a variety of challenges and concerns with implementation of the Sustainable Settlements initiative. From the proponent’s point of view, the biggest challenges are associated with government policy, including delays in issuing regulations for implementation of CAR, complexities associated with land tenure regularization and modifications to the Brazilian Forest Code. According to IPAM, the amnesty for illegal deforestation offered by the revised Forest Code reduced households’ motivation to conserve forest.
Although the Transamazon region has a history of land conflicts, land tenure was considered to be secure in all four communities, with boundaries of properties generally known and respected. Households reported that they were usually able to exclude unwanted loggers from their land, but they were not able to exclude hunters. Even though respondents generally felt secure due to the long time that they had lived on individual landholdings, they argued for the urgency of receiving land titles. Only 12% of households in the sample are private landowners with title, with the rest either official settlers in land reform projects with some documentation but no title, or squatters with no official recognition of their land rights. Land titles are important because they facilitate the process of acquiring credit, are required to obtain permits for the legal management of forest products, and document the clear exclusionary rights to land required for both regulatory and incentive-based REDD+ mechanisms (Duchelle et al. 2014).
To learn about the local perspectives on the REDD+ initiative, we first asked sampled households about their knowledge of the initiative. At the time of our baseline field research, less than one-third (31%) of households interviewed were able to accurately describe the REDD+ initiative, reflecting the fact that it was still in its design stage and IPAM had just started its meetings to inform people about the initiative. We asked those 43 households about their concerns and recommendations regarding the initiative. The households’ main worry was that the REDD+ initiative would fail to start or continue, which reflects their disappointment with the premature ending of Proambiente. Farmers said that they are tired of unfulfilled promises and emphasized that while some families reduced deforestation and stopped their use of fire, this change in practices had harmed their incomes and diets. Families expressed concern that the REDD+ initiative would reduce their incomes and that they would not receive alternative sources of income. They also reflected on the potentially negative impacts on household livelihoods and food security if the initiative limited their land use and agricultural practices. Other respondents indicated that they were worried about initiative mismanagement and minimal financial resources being allocated to the communities.
Households’ main recommendation focused on improving local production systems through technical assistance and improvement of basic infrastructure, such as roads and transportation. If farmers decide to invest in cash crops, they need roads in good condition for year-round transport of their products; otherwise, transportation costs remain exorbitantly high. Second, farmers emphasized the need for meaningful participation and alignment of REDD+ benefits with local needs. Third, households recommended learning from past experiences with Proambiente to avoid making the same mistakes. They emphasized the need for transparency and local participation in the management of initiative funds. The families also recommended that the initiative adequately compensate communities for avoided deforestation, effective protection of forests and restoration of degraded areas.
7.5 Lessons from the initiative
The Sustainable Settlement initiative is unique in that it originated from Proambiente, one of the first federal initiatives to apply the idea of PES in Brazil. Some of the positive aspects of Proambiente were reflected in the design of IPAM’s REDD+ initiative, including the property management plans mentioned earlier. Given the heterogeneity of livelihood strategies and household preferences, these plans allow customized individual actions that take into account household differences. This is particularly important in the Transamazon region where not only differences in farmers’ preferences, but variation in the ecological conditions of the plots (e.g. soil types) and household structure make a single approach unworkable. Farmers’ concerns with their production systems and food security also highlight the need for local people to be involved in the design of customized long-term interventions that support, and avoid harming, their livelihoods.
In addition, households in the Transamazon emphasized the importance of linking specific initiatives with public policy reforms, as they were deeply dissatisfied with the interruption of Proambiente (Cromberg et al. 2014). They also emphasized the need for basic services, and community utilities and infrastructure, which historically had been neglected by the government and are obstacles to improving their productive systems. For this reason, subnational REDD+ initiatives must be linked to transformative policies and measures at municipal, state and national levels, such as agrarian reform and land tenure regularization, broad-based technical assistance, appropriate rural credit lines and provision of infrastructure, and basic services in rural areas. This REDD+ initiative will not be able to promote sustainable production systems if households lack the infrastructure to store and transport their goods for sale at competitive prices.
While IPAM is calling on the municipal and state governments to improve and expand basic infrastructure, it is beyond their mandate as an NGO to realize such an investment in infrastructure. For this reason, IPAM has tried to create partnerships at different levels of government since the initiative design stage. In an attempt to engage municipal governments in initiative implementation, IPAM led the creation of the Inter-municipal Consortium for Sustainable Development of the Transamazon and Xingu in 2011. The goal of this effort was to work with five municipal governments to create alternative production strategies that would reduce carbon emissions in the region and to discuss the infrastructure needs of rural areas. At the state level, IPAM has participated in forums to discuss the state government’s strategy to reduce deforestation. Strategies for promoting sustainable production demonstrated in IPAM’s REDD+ initiative have been adopted by the state program called Municipios Verdes (green municipalities). At the federal level, IPAM partnered with INCRA to clarify land tenure and implement registration in CAR. More broadly, IPAM has advocated for a nested approach to REDD+, which includes a low-emission strategy at the jurisdictional level. While it is extremely challenging to achieve true government commitment to low-emissions development, which often goes against BAU interests, IPAM’s experiences with this initiative have shown that REDD+ must be incorporated into broader economic and land-use planning to be effective.
7.6 Acknowledgments
We are grateful to the men and women of the Transamazon for their cordiality and for sharing their time, knowledge and perceptions, and to IPAM’s team members for sharing their REDD+ initiative information with us. We are also thankful to the members of our field team and data encoders for their outstanding collaboration: Andréia Silva da Luz, Carolina Souza Dias Guyot, Carolle Utrera Alarcon, Cristiano Polla, Denise Reis do Nascimento, Marcelo Ducatti, Ivaide Rodrigues dos Santos, Jaciane de Souza Guimarães, Joab de Souza Guimarães, Mário Vitorino Marques da Silva, Oseias Costa Santos and Thiago Machado Greco.
1 The complete initiative name is Sustainable Settlements in the Amazon: The challenge of family production in a low carbon economy, or in Portuguese Assentamentos Sustentáveis na Amazônia: o desafio da produção familiar em uma economia de baixo carbono (PAS). The first proposal that was submitted to the Brazilian National Development Bank (BNDES) was entitled Desmatamento evitado em pequenas propriedade na região da rodovia Transamazônica.
2 The Amazon Fund (see Box D) is managed by BNDES.
3 Proambiente was a federal pilot program designed to reconcile smallholder production and natural resource conservation through land-use planning, technical assistance and PES.
4 These soil types are part of the Brazilian soil classification system.
5 Caboclos are mixed descendants of Amerindians, Portuguese and Afro-Brazilians.
6 Students from Casas Familiares Rurais, which are vocational schools for young people from rural areas, will collaborate with the initiative in various activities and receive a scholarship.
7 The community groups or núcleos formed during Proambiente do not correspond to the traditional definition of communities in the Amazon, but rather are clusters of participant households located in relatively close proximity.
8 The property management plan was a long-term plan for the families’ transition to sustainable agriculture. The plan identified the families’ goals and ways to reach those goals.
9 The community agreements were a pact established by the members of each of the 15 community groups. These agreements were used for the participatory monitoring of the compromises assumed by the group and by each household through their property management plan.
10 Because some families that had participated in Proambiente moved or decided not to participate in the REDD+ initiative, two of the original community groups were dissolved.
11 The value received by each participant depends on the level of compliance with three conditions: (i) conservation or restoration of APPs such as riparian zones (30% of the payment); (ii) conservation or restoration of forest cover according to the goals established in the property management plans (30% of the payment) – only families with the legally required 50% of forest cover receive the full 30% of the payment; and (iii) adoption of better production practices (40% of the payment) aligned with the commitments made in the property management plans.